General defences of tort

Justification of Torts.

1. Law Of Torts JUSTIFICATION OF TORTS 6 APRIL , 2020

2. Justification of torts When a Plaintiff brings an action against a defendant for a particular tort providing existing of all essential of that tort, the defendant would be held liable for that. But some privileges are also available for defendant to defend so they can escape his liability . Volenti non fit injuria . Plaintiff the wrong doer. Inevitable Accidents. Injury to eye Damage to explosive substance Injury by runaway horses Injury by pallet .   Act of God. Private Defense / Self-defense. Mistake. Necessity. Statutory Authority.

3. 2. Plaintiff the wrong doer . Ex turpi causa non oritur actio No Action arises from an immoral cause

4. Illustration : In this picture a person is trying to trespass in the land, if he got injured , he can’t sue the owner of the premises. No court will aid a person who found his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal aid.

5. Inevitable accidents A accident which is physically unavoidable . If any accident with all due care and precautions will happen called Inevitable Accident. An accident not caused by human negligence. (Merriam- webster ) ILLUSTRATIONS: a. A large storm causing the roadway to collapse when someone is driving over it could be considered an inevitable accident since the accident was caused by an unexpected storm and not human error . b. Case : (Runaway Horses Case), Holmes v. Mather (1875) LR 10 Ex. 261 c . Smith v Lord [1962] SASR 88 : “As the driver had no long history of heart related issues , he was able to deny liability with the defence of inevitable accident for an accident which was caused by loss of vehicle control due to cardiac failure”.

6. CONTINUED….. Collins Transport Group Pty Ltd v Kerry Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2006] SADC 124: A collision between two vehicles was held to be unavoidable as expert cardiologist evidence supported that the driver had insufficient time to react and avoid the accident due to the cardiac event.   e. Dowsing v Goodwin(1998) 27 MVR 43 : Although the driver suffered a sudden hypoglycaemic attack, she had the condition since childhood and her blood sugar levels were of concern weeks before the accident. As such, she was found negligent for not taking reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of the attacks.

7. Continued….. K & S Freighters Pty Ltd v Nelmeer Hoteliers Pty Ltd-BC 200103009 : As there was a known history of chest pain which had previously progressed into a heart attack, there was sufficient warning that something was not right, so his defence was dismissed by the court.

8. Act of GOD An act of God is a defense used in cases of torts when an event over which the defendant has no control over occurs and the damage is caused by the forces of nature. In such cases, the defendant will not be liable in tort law for such inadvertent damage. The loss in act of GOD arises from natural factors likes: Exceptionally heavy rain fall Storms Earth quakes Tides

9. Continued….. Essential of Act of God: The act should result from a natural force. No human intervention. Extraordinary in nature. Illustratio ns: 1994 Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 448 S.E.2d 403. Earthen dam broke causing damage to property owners downstream. Defendants alleged extraordinary flood is act of God . To relieve one of liability because flood is act of God, it must appear that act of God was sole proximate cause of injury. In this instance human agency was element, since there was evidence of negligence in terms of construction of dam .

10. Continued…… 1951 Portsmouth v. Culpepper, 192 Va. 362, 64 S.E.2d 799. Act of the divine or of God defined as any accident due to natural cause directly and exclusively without human intervention such as could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight. Artificial lakes case Kalulala v/s hamchand case (wall fallen due to lightly rain)

11. Private Defense/ Self Defense: Among the general defences in tort, private defence is the most common. When a defendant tries to protect his body or property or any other person’s property, harms another person by using reasonable force, under an imminent-danger and where there is no time to report instantly to the authority, it is Private Defence . The harm done should be proportional according to the nature of the circumstances . Essentials of Private Defense: Reasonable Force. Self defense.

12. Continued….. Is this self defense??????

13. Mistake When a defendant acts under a mistaken belief in some or the other situation, he may plead the defense of mistake. A mistake is of two types : The mistake of law: No defense in each civil and criminal case. The mistake of fact: Not valid in torts

14. Necessity ‘Necessity knows no law’. In order to avoid or  prevent a great loss  or harm, a defendant can cause lesser harm that is justified. The act of the defendant may be not legal but if it is to avoid major damage then he can plead this defense . Essentials When the defendant acts to avoid a significant risk of harm. His causing of harm should be justified.

15. Continued….. Illustrations: Case: Surocco v. Geary Facts San Francisco was hit by a major fire. The plaintiff, Surocco , was attempting to remove goods from his home while the fire raged nearby. The defendant and mayor of San Francisco, Geary, authorized that the plaintiff's home be demolished to stop the progress of the fire and to prevent its spread to nearby buildings. Surocco sued the mayor claiming he could have recovered more of his possessions had his house not been blown up. Issue Is a person liable for the private property of another if destroying that property would prevent an imminent public disaster?

16. Continued….. Decision No. The right of necessity falls under natural law and exists independent of society and government. Individual rights must give way to the higher law of impending necessity. A house on fire or about to catch on fire is a public nuisance which is lawful to abate. Otherwise one stubborn person could destroy an entire city. If property is destroyed without an apparent necessity, the destroying person would be liable to the property owner for trespass. Here, blowing up Surocco's house was necessary to stop the fire. Any delay in blowing up the house to allow him to remove more of his possessions would have made blowing up the house too late.

17. Statutory Authority Another general defence is statutory Authority. If an act is sanctioned by a statutory enactment or a law passed by the  legislature , then the defendant cannot be held liable for the damages resulting in the course of such an act . Illustration: If there is a railway line near your house and the noises of the train passing disturbs then you have no remedy because the construction and the use of the railway is authorized under a statute.

18. Continued….. However, this does not give the authorities the license to do what they want unnecessarily; they must act in a reasonable manner. I have an example for this from my own life, there was a telephone exchange in my locality and the generators which were used were of very high frequency which was permitted in a residential area, the court asked the exchange to be removed from that place.

19. THANK YOU PREPARED BY : ADVOCATE NIGHAT NASEER